latest high end video footage of sts-80 ufo's

reply to post by JimOberg


seriously.... what are you on about.... thats how you intended to 'weigh in' and 'bite'.......

there are only 7 pics in roll # 301.... surprise....


STS077-301-3


STS077-301-4


STS077-301-5


STS077-301-7


STS077-301-8


STS077-301-9

as far as i can see.... they are pretty busy trying to track objects...

aliens are going to travel light years to our planet and the only way they figure they can communicate with us is to make a ridiculous light pattern visable ONLY to a few humans in a ship orbiting the planet?

This does not show intelligence.

Is the camera behind a glass pane? Looks like the lights are actually from behind the camera.

visable ONLY to a few humans in a ship orbiting the planet?

who knows for sure ? do you ?

Dr. Musgrave stated he attempted to communicate with ET life forms during each of his six missions. He actually asked them to take him with them. Now that’s an astronaut with a lot of courage. Dr. Musgrave retired after this flight from NASA.
richardlalancette.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg
My own experience is -- no secret regulations re UFO stuff, and the only national security issues in mission ops involved some SECRET-level DoD payloads 20-35 years ago, all gone now.

But that is only your experience is it not and does not mean in any way that NASA has nothing at all to do with UFO’s read Extraterrestrial crafts.

I think it is really the opposite, because why would NASA set up back then a department to investigate spacecraft and things like flying saucers just after a flying saucer and its crew had landed around 1964 at Edwards AFB?

Look what Edward L. Moragne, Ph.D., Physicist said about that.

“Dr. Moragne is a retired physicist who is nearing 80 years in age and in fair, but steadily declining health. His knowledge might soon follow his name into quiet obscurity, even though he has worked closely with equally brilliant men - men like J. R. Oppenheimer; Albert Einstein; and Dr. Edward Teller, 'Father' of the hydrogen bomb.

This is a small segment of an interview form Linda Moulton Howe with Edward L. Moragne, Ph.D., Physicist.

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARRIVED AND WENT INTO SUSPENDED ANIMATION?

None of the people I knew at Edwards AFB found out. I think they are still trying to find out.

The last grilling I took with the space agency was that the space agency set up a department to investigate spacecraft and things like flying saucers.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NASA?

Yes.

December 29, 2009 - Part 2: Highly Strange X-File of Edward Leverne Moragne, Ph.D.

© 2009 by Linda Moulton Howe

“The Edwards AFB people said that there were little slits up there in a narrow rise only about 8 or 10 inches high atop the disc. It was through.” - Edward L. Moragne, Ph.D., Physicist

Dr. Moragne said that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, he was head of a scientific team working at Edwards AFB on a very special DOD project, which involved a flying saucer and its crew that landed at Edwards AFB. It landed northwest of the base in a flat part and a door opened and the ‘guys’ described as humanoids walked out and laid down on the ground.

All of a sudden, the stairway closed back up and the legs (of craft) closed back up and the spacecraft sat back down on the ground. The humanoids just laid there until the disk and its occupants were carted off to a secure building on the base for scientific evaluation.”

Linda; IS THAT WHAT YOU REMEMBER?

Howe May 8, 1997, Interview with Edward Leverne Moragne, Ph.D.: “Well, that's true pretty much. But the legs didn't fold up. The stairway they came down slid back up and closed. Our military people tried every way in the world to get into that spacecraft. They even took electronic torches that use hydrogen and active bromides and electricity to try to cut the metal. But they never could cut it. That crew burned and boiled at that craft for a week or ten days.

FOR A WEEK OR TEN DAYS, OUR MILITARY TRIED TO CUT INTO THE SPACECRAFT?

Yeah, they tried all different spots along the craft.

WERE THERE ANY BURN MARKS OR CUTS?

No. You couldn't even tell where they were trying to burn that craft!

www.earthfiles.com...

It is all really a very interesting interview, but you must be a paid subscriber in order to be able to read it.

But if you are interested, and you want to read the whole interview, let me know and we can work that out.



[edit on 5/1/10 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by JimOberg
My own experience is -- no secret regulations re UFO stuff, and the only national security issues in mission ops involved some SECRET-level DoD payloads 20-35 years ago, all gone now.

But that is only your experience is it not and does not mean in any way that NASA has nothing at all to do with UFO’s read Extraterrestrial crafts.

I think it is really the opposite, because why would NASA set up back then a department to investigate spacecraft and things like flying saucers just after a flying saucer and its crew had landed around 1964 at Edwards AFB?

Look what Edward L. Moragne, Ph.D., Physicist said about that.

Well, I guess one guy with a French name and wild unverified claims -- like working with Einstein while still a college student? -- trumps somebody else's documented evidence and verifiable testimony every time. Every time. Game over, I guess. You win again.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by JimOberg
My own experience is -- no secret regulations re UFO stuff, and the only national security issues in mission ops involved some SECRET-level DoD payloads 20-35 years ago, all gone now.

But that is only your experience is it not and does not mean in any way that NASA has nothing at all to do with UFO’s read Extraterrestrial crafts.

I think it is really the opposite, because why would NASA set up back then a department to investigate spacecraft and things like flying saucers just after a flying saucer and its crew had landed around 1964 at Edwards AFB?

Look what Edward L. Moragne, Ph.D., Physicist said about that.

Well, I guess one guy with a French name and wild unverified claims -- like working with Einstein while still a college student? -- trumps somebody else's documented evidence and verifiable testimony every time. Every time. Game over, I guess. You win again.

Come on Jim, please stop with making remarks like that, because this is not a matter of winning, it has all to do with unraveling the truth regarding the UFO/Extraterrestrial reality?

And because that phenomenon is worldwide and sorely up there, it really even doesn’t matter whatever nationality someone has.
What important is are the man’s credentials and background, and there are in the mean time so many of them that it is at least unwise not to listen to them or even worse, very naïve to ignore them in my opinion.

Moragne has acted as a consultant to the Atomic Energy Commission, NASA, and a number of private industries, you can read that here.

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

But to be honest, I think that you know a lot more of the UFO/Extraterrestrial phenomenon then you pretend us to believe, but I can be wrong of course.




[edit on 5/1/10 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Moragne has acted as a consultant to the Atomic Energy Commission, NASA, and a number of private industries, you can read that here.

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

Thanks for the link -- my own searches found nothing but some of his patents.

Note that the link merely flacks a speech Moragne gave to a technical society meeting in the NASA area. It also repeats Moragne's own press release about 'serving as a consultant', which practically anybody who any NASA employee ever asked a question of in the last fifty years, could claim.

But it confirms that he was a member in good standing of the scientific establishment, that's the important thing -- unlike so many other poseurs in recent years whose credential claims were self-inflated or entirely bogus (e.g., Corso).

Do we have any independent verification of Howe's account of their conversations?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Moragne has acted as a consultant to the Atomic Energy Commission, NASA, and a number of private industries, you can read that here.

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

Thanks for the link -- my own searches found nothing but some of his patents.

Note that the link merely flacks a speech Moragne gave to a technical society meeting in the NASA area. It also repeats Moragne's own press release about 'serving as a consultant', which practically anybody who any NASA employee ever asked a question of in the last fifty years, could claim.

But it confirms that he was a member in good standing of the scientific establishment, that's the important thing -- unlike so many other poseurs in recent years whose credential claims were self-inflated or entirely bogus (e.g., Corso).

Do we have any independent verification of Howe's account of their conversations?

Why would you need independent verification of Howe's account of their conversations?

These are definately ufos if the video isn't fake. Some sort of crafts hovering in the atmosphere for sure. Probably not from earth.

reply to post by easynow


Very interested in certain clips from easynow's "best NASA UFO" vid.

Thanks for that easy!

All this clips show clear movement from the object in question.

The clips are at the times:

0:17, 0:23, 0.37, 3.40

Have any of these clips had critical analysis with results either way?

Also of interest is the image of a UFO that can be seen on the laptop on the ISS at 4:09.

I can't find anything about that ... my initial thought is a screen saver, but if anyone has any other info I would love to hear it.

reply to post by Horza

Thanks for that easy!

your welcome , glad you liked the video. imo it is the best on youtube

Have any of these clips had critical analysis with results either way?

i personally haven't seen any unbiased "critical analysis" done on those clips but they have been discussed many times here on ATS. LunaCognita might know some more about it , i will ask him next time i get the chance.

Also of interest is the image of a UFO that can be seen on the laptop on the ISS at 4:09.
I can't find anything about that ... my initial thought is a screen saver, but if anyone has any other info I would love to hear it.

that is surprising to see eh ? i am sure it's just a screen saver

you can see the pics here...

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...

and some discussion about the ufo pic...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

hope that helps ?

Easynow I applaud your manner and decorum when dealing with Oberg and his tactic of -Deflect>Personal Attack>Deflect>Personal Attack>Avoid Answering Questions>Personal Attack- Rinse and repeat...

Thank you for contributing to this community in the manner you do, it's much appreciated and incredibly valued... The objects forming the circle in your provided screenshot are probably the MOST convincing video evidence to date ever seen IMO.

These objects do not move randomly. These objects are under some kind of control. These objects are CLEARLY forming a circle and changing brightness.
For someone to say these objects are "Ice Particles" speaks for itself in terms of someone following a dictated protocol of explanations. His responses have become so predictable in nature that I no longer even bother reading his posts anymore.

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


thanks Jocko Flocko ,

he is a tricky one that's for sure

i try my best to fight for the truth and that's one of the reasons why i am here. if nobody challenges NASA and the people they send out for damage control then we IMO are not trying to denying ignorance. (some peeps might disagree)


the video of the objects forming the circle is an amazing piece of footage and i have never seen any other video to compare that even comes close to it. i agree with you that it does look like the objects are being selective about their positioning and the timing of how they light up or whatever is happening, can't be just coincidence. i have some theory's about this that relates to crop circles (the real ones) but it's next to impossible to present something like that here in this forum with out being ridiculed to death.

i think you might be correct about the dictated protocol because from what i understand the Apollo Astronauts were taught the “Theory of Least Astonishment” when describing things they seen on the Moon. Neil Armstrong was surprised and fascinated with it.


this quote from LunaCognita explains it much better than i can...

Prior to their missions, when the Apollo astronauts were being trained on the "Presumption of Naturality" rulebook they had to follow, they were taught a specific series of descriptive techniques that would allow them to appear to be providing in-depth observations of the sights they were seeing while ensuring that they were still adhering to the strict tenets of the Dead Moon Dictum. The primary visual observation technique the astronauts were taught was known simply as "Least Astonishment".

Probably the very best basic description I have ever heard to explain the concept of "Least Astonishment" and how it was applied to the Apollo cover-story visual self-censorship training techniques comes directly from one of the Apollo astronauts - a guy that literally everyone has heard of, Neil A. Armstrong (Obviously, there is no need to run through this man's CV). Here is how Armstrong, in his authorized biography published in 2005, briefly described how the Apollo crews were trained to follow the principles of "Least Astonishment" during the Apollo missions.

"The geologists had a wonderful theory they called the “Theory of Least Astonishment”. According to the theory, when you ran into a particular rock formation, you hypothesized how it might have occurred and created as many theories as you could think of as to how it might have gotten there. But the scenario that was least astonishing was the one you were supposed to accept as the basis for further analysis. I found that fascinating. It was an approach to logic that I had never experienced in engineering."

From “First Man - The Life Of Neil Armstrong” (Armstrong's authorized biography - 2005)



[edit on 5-1-2010 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Jocko Flocko

 

thanks Jocko Flocko ,

he is a tricky one that's for sure

i try my best to fight for the truth and that's one of the reasons why i am here. if nobody challenges NASA and the people they send out for damage control then we IMO are not trying to denying ignorance. (some peeps might disagree)


the video of the objects forming the circle is an amazing piece of footage and i have never seen any other video to compare that even comes close to it. i agree with you that it does look like the objects are being selective about their positioning and the timing of how they light up or whatever is happening, can't be just coincidence. i have some theory's about this that relates to crop circles (the real ones) but it's next to impossible to present something like that here in this forum with out being ridiculed to death.

i think you might be correct about the dictated protocol because from what i understand the Apollo Astronauts were taught the “Theory of Least Astonishment” when describing things they seen on the Moon. Neil Armstrong was surprised and fascinated with it.
[snip]
[edit on 5-1-2010 by easynow]

The objects arriving and forming a circle has to be the most unusual event in ufology, IF what we're seeing is what is really happening. However, one thing that has always bothered me about the objects that no one has mentioned is that they do not seem to have any solidity to them; they are amorphous. Yet UFOs video'd by everyman/woman have a solidity to them. If they were as amorphous as the objects forming the circle they probably would not be seen by us on the ground. What is your opinion?

reply to post by The Shrike


in my opinion for what ever it's worth , i don't think the copy of the video we have to work with is good enough to make a final judgement on wether or not these objects have any solidity. from looking at the video copy we have now i would say you might be correct that they do not appear to have a solid or definite shape to them. they appear as a light source no matter what they really are.

they might resemble Foo Fighters ? (wish we had video of them)



just a theory but if these Foo's followed Airplanes in WW1 and WW2 is it such a crazy idea to think they might be attracted to the Shuttle in some way ? i am not saying this is the explanation but it's something to consider.




what did you think about the "Least Astonishment" theory ?

Prior to their missions, when the Apollo astronauts were being trained on the "Presumption of Naturality" rulebook they had to follow, they were taught a specific series of descriptive techniques that would allow them to appear to be providing in-depth observations of the sights they were seeing while ensuring that they were still adhering to the strict tenets of the Dead Moon Dictum. The primary visual observation technique the astronauts were taught was known simply as "Least Astonishment".

Probably the very best basic description I have ever heard to explain the concept of "Least Astonishment" and how it was applied to the Apollo cover-story visual self-censorship training techniques comes directly from one of the Apollo astronauts - a guy that literally everyone has heard of, Neil A. Armstrong (Obviously, there is no need to run through this man's CV). Here is how Armstrong, in his authorized biography published in 2005, briefly described how the Apollo crews were trained to follow the principles of "Least Astonishment" during the Apollo missions.

"The geologists had a wonderful theory they called the “Theory of Least Astonishment”. According to the theory, when you ran into a particular rock formation, you hypothesized how it might have occurred and created as many theories as you could think of as to how it might have gotten there. But the scenario that was least astonishing was the one you were supposed to accept as the basis for further analysis. I found that fascinating. It was an approach to logic that I had never experienced in engineering."

From “First Man - The Life Of Neil Armstrong” (Armstrong's authorized biography - 2005)

[edit on 6-1-2010 by easynow]

To me it is quite obvious that these are highly intelligent crafts. Especially when they park in the formation and glow together as the earth is spinning. Quite extraordinary film this one.

Ufos exist and they are here for sure.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by The Shrike

 

in my opinion for what ever it's worth , i don't think the copy of the video we have to work with is good enough to make a final judgement on wether or not these objects have any solidity. from looking at the video copy we have now i would say you might be correct that they do not appear to have a solid or definite shape to them. they appear as a light source no matter what they really are.

they might resemble Foo Fighters ? (wish we had video of them)
[snip]
just a theory but if these Foo's followed Airplanes in WW1 and WW2 is it such a crazy idea to think they might be attracted to the Shuttle in some way ? i am not saying this is the explanation but it's something to consider.

what did you think about the "Least Astonishment" theory ?

[edit on 6-1-2010 by easynow]

We do not have videos of "foo fighters" but there are enough photos to show that they were just your regular UFO.

To me the "Least Astonishment" theory is just a differently-worded version of Occam's Razor.

reply to post by easynow


Hey Easynow,

Here is some Foo Fighter stuff - with animations:

keyholepublishing.com...

Here is the .gif at the end (in case you wanna check it out first to whet your appetite).

It is a pair of foo fighters:


keyholepublishing.com...



[edit on 9-1-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


nice find Exuberant1

will be adding that to the collection for sure !

there was a Air Force General (American) that was in charge of investigating these UFO's since WW1 and took the Foo secrets with him to his grave. anyone know his name ?



www.rense.com...


i am also glad you posted that link because i thought the project prove webpages were Inaccessible since Jeff Challendar passed away

www.projectprove.com...


[edit on 9-1-2010 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow

i am also glad

you posted that link because i thought the project prove webpages were Inaccessible since Jeff Challendar passed away

www.projectprove.com...

Once Richard Dolan found out that Challender's site was down he decided to host it on his own website.


I think Richard Dolan is one of the Best in Ufology.




[edit on 9-1-2010 by Exuberant1]